Slashdot Mirror
ISPs 'Exaggerate the Cost of Data'
Barence writes "ISPs are wildly exaggerating the cost of increased internet traffic, according to a new report. Fixed and mobile broadband providers have claimed their costs are 'ballooning' because of the expense of delivering high-bandwidth services such as video-on-demand. However, a new report from Plum Consulting claims the cost per additional gigabyte of data for fixed-line ISPs is between €0.01-0.03 per GB. The report labels claims of ballooning costs a 'myth.'"
No fucking shit.
Note that this research was funded by the content providers (like skype) ISPs were asking to pay extra for the bandwidth their services use. I'm not pointing any fingers, but it's something to think about.
Another report by the same Institution concluded that water is wet, electricity is not magic, and that dinosaurs are in fact extinct. The results are still pending on if a duck weighs less than water though. But on a serious note, it's good to see people calling bollocks on these claims. It's not that these things aren't problems, it's that they inflate the cost estimates grossly and delay infrastructure upgrades purposely.
That figure is the amount that I pay for data from my colo, but that assumes that the infrastructure already exists. If you have a cable network with 100Mb/s of bandwidth, then you can sell 10Mb/s connections to 10 people. If you've sold them to 5 people, then the cost of adding another customer is basically zero. You can probably get away with selling 10Mb/s connections to 100 or even 200 people if they have typical modest usage patterns, because each one will still be able to get 10Mb/s for the short periods that they saturate the line. If they start all using the connection at the same time, then you have no choice but to increase your overall network capacity. This means laying more fibre. The cost may still be under three eurocents per gigabyte, but that's amortised over the entire life of the new cable, which may be a decade (or more): the ISP has to pay for it all up front. This is where the increase in costs comes from. They have to make significant capital investments, they don't have a significant change in their operating expenses.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's not only infrastructure. Not even starting at wages for workers and other recurring costs, ISP's have to pay each other to buy bandwidth from them. Only the tier 1 ISP's can get away with peering without extra costs.
On top of that, their payment model isn't $0.xx/GB of transfer, it's $xxxx per Gbps of bandwidth. If ISP buys too much bandwidth, it means it will sit there without being used, or it may be used in peak times and be just sitting there the rest ~20 hours of day.
Also, it requires there to be actual connectivity available - for example, my country as a whole has something like 30Gbps in/out. Still they're selling 100Mbps for customers to use. It's perfectly sure that if everyone would use that 100Mbps at once to download content off the country, it would not be enough. However, it works out because home users rarely need that kind of bandwidth 24/7.
If you want dedicated bandwidth that is guaranteed, then buy it. Just be willing to pay over $1000 a month for your 100Mbps line. This isn't new to anyone - it's the same in server hosting world too, but there it's more clearly marked if the bandwidth is shared or dedicated as it matters more and some people actually have real need and are willing to pay up to that $1000 a month for it. With home users, no one would do that.
the cost per additional gigabyte of data for fixed-line ISPs is between €0.01-0.03 per GB
So to work out what the cost is for each gigabyte, we'll need to know how many GBs there are in each gigabyte.
You obviously don't understand that Plum Consulting is just pointing out that these companies are using price fixing. They all make an excuse, then all jack their rates. It's collaboration, which carries some hefty fines.
When you shop around for hosting, the price/GB can fluctuate wildly. Amazon's EC2 is almost at the top with $0.12/GB, but Cogent at $5/Mbit (~0.015/GB) is one of the cheapest for transit/paid traffic.
Even less? How about free, using peering agreements on internet exchanges? This way, providers like Hetzner can sell their bandwidth for even less, like 5-10TB included and â 6,90/TB after (â 0.0069/GB).
ISP's should just whine less and do their homework. I can understand small ISP's having trouble when leasing lines from the larger ones (article has Trimco vs BT as example), but the main problem is that the larger ISP's promote this "bandwidth is expensive" myth even harder...
How do you go about setting up an 'open ISP'? I wonder about a business plan for such a thing. There is rent, the connections, lines, equipment. Sounds costly. I'm sure there a way to set up a mesh network without an ISP at all, something like I2P without any ISP, having multiple hubs over cities, that connect one to another directly, getting away from the normal ISPs.
Yea, shame on them for trying to make profit on top of the actual cost. They should sell it at cost! After all the internet is free right?
well, i don't think you've considered that free markets might actually work ALOT better if infrastructure was non-profit ;P
Technically, dinosaurs are not extinct.
Oh there's a big surprise! That's an incredible - I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die of not surprise!
Yes, obviously, if you're a moron and don't plan for growth, it's an expensive business.
If however you do, costs are flat, if not decreasing. For instance, a pair of 10gb cards and two dark lamdas are less than 10 1gb cards and 20 lamdas. 100gig is just moving to less cost than 1x 10gig, which means *more* (dark, at least) capacity is being freed up every day.
The real increasing costs are in the management overhead of increasing resiliance - customers won't accept facebook/youtube/whatever being down for an hour anymore, which means for each 1gig of data, you need 1 gig pipe, plus a 1gig of 'overflow' somewhere if the pipe breaks.
It's not only infrastructure. Not even starting at wages for workers and other recurring costs, ISP's have to pay each other to buy bandwidth from them. Only the tier 1 ISP's can get away with peering without extra costs.
If your ISP's business plan is to make up those costs on overage charges, I suggest you find a new ISP, as they will go bankrupt as soon as their customer base starts watching what they're doing.
That kind of cost, and everything else you mention in your post, is supposed to be budgeted for in your monthly tithe err... monthly subscription fees. Overage fees are just that... fees for going over the allotted amount of monthly usage. Those fees are completely unreasonable. At that point, it does not cost them $2.50/GB to deliver that data to you, because your monthly subscription fee has already covered the lion's share of those costs. It really does only cost $0.01/GB at that point, or at least, it should only cost that little if they're doing it right.
Gee. Do you suppose that the credit and debit card processing banks are exaggerating the cost of a transaction? Nah.
I've been saying the same thing for years - as soon as any technology reaches the stage where it becomes essential infrastructure, ownership should gradually transfer to the public. And to those of you who say, "What about capitalism and free enterprise", I say "What about all the tax breaks, government handouts, favourable legislation, and public rights-of-way that these 'free market' 'capitalist' companies took advantage of to get where they are?"
It strikes me that privatized infrastructure is like patents and copyrights in this regard. A period of full ownership and control is required in order to ensure a fair return on investment and to incentivize creation; after that period expires, the thing created belongs to the public. Everyone who complains about the screwed-up patent and copyright systems ought also to be complaining about the continued private, for-profit ownership of such things as communications infrastructure.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
The cost varies. I can get a 30meg bursable to 90 fiber connection in Downtown Ft. Myers, FL for around $1100/month. Getting it outside of Downtown and the cost is more than 3 times that. And there are many places where I could get bandwidth far cheaper than that (Tampa Miami).
If you buy water next to a river it will be cheap. Want water in the middle of the desert it's going to cost. It's not the cost of the water, it's the cost of moving it.
Video on demand (Netflix, Hulu, etc) uses 10 times the bandwidth of all other uses of the Internet combined, except maybe bit torrent (probably downloading videos anyway).
Video is one of the reasons we have so few CLEC and alternative ISPs willing to provide residential services here. Lots of companies wanting to sell to businesses (at least 6 CLECs/WISPs I can think of), we are the only one that will sell residential service. We have several individual residential accounts that use the same amount of bandwidth as an office with 50 computers. Business customer=$250/month, residential customer=$44.
People are using the increasingly using there Internet connection to get the same services they used to pay a Cable or satellite provider twice the money for. Many of the companies that provide these services are also the only ISPs most people can get service from (cable and phone companies). I am sure that in lots of board rooms they are talking about how Netflix and Hulu are eating their lunch and how they can stop it.
With so many public officials throughout the developed world saying that broadband internet access is a necessity and a right for modern society, I have to agree that the infrastructure needs to be moved to public control. Just as roads are essential infrastructure, so to is the internet. I would extend this argument to cell phones, as the current system in the US is ridiculous as well, but that's rather off-topic.
Government control of the infrastructure can be a cost-neutral endeavor, with the costs of expanding, repairing, and maintaining the system paid for by the ISP licensing fees for the bandwidth.
Davies said this is especially the case for smaller ISPs who rent lines on a wholesale basis from BT.
Nice how he compares being overcharged by an internet service provider as the cause behind the need to overcharge people for internet service provision.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
The overage charges aren't supposed to make them lots of money, it's supposed to keep heavy bandwidth users in control so that the rest of the network doesn't suffer. Also, it doesn't matter how much it actually costs to the ISPs at that point. Nowhere they say it costs them $2.50/GB, but that's the price they're billing from you if you use over something like 250GB a month, which most people won't. They're free to do so. You're also free to choose your provider. However, don't bitch if there are no providers that sell you at the price you want.
Note that sometimes just upgrading their network doesn't work. There is a limited amount of bandwidth available between ISPs and from city to city and to and from overseas. It costs billions to lay down new such cables in the bottom of the atlantic. When your ISP is the size of major ISP's, they just don't have the possibility to offer everyone dedicated bandwidth. It has to be shared.
If they have a need to control the amount of bandwidth some heavy users use on their network, then that's the best way to go about it. Or in fact, they could either offer overage fees or severely limit your bandwidth. However, they have saw the need to do it make sure the rest of the customers aren't affected. Those torrenting and using full 100Mbps home line 24/7 are just leeches that are bringing down the network quality for rest of the customers.
Of course, if you don't agree you can always go start your ISP. Seems like you'd make a fortune since you've suddenly found so easy and cheap way to do.
the companies officers over compensation?
Really they are just jealous/greedy that someone else is making money (sometimes more) on their transport system.
Rick B.
It's bad enough that law enforcement can easily get subpoena's to track individual users now. Imagine if the government was IN CONTROL of the internet. You think we have security/privacy issues now? Shit. You ain't seen nothing yet.
If you want dedicated bandwidth that is guaranteed, then buy it. Just be willing to pay over $1000 a month for your 100Mbps line.
Prices are significantly based on what the customer can pay, so comparing a home pricing to business pricing is deceptive. Businesses pay more for everything because they have more to pay, not because they are getting precious high-grade products.
I used to work tech support for an ISP. Its called over selling and they all do it. They make people fight for bandwidth and just make excuses that its peak hours instead of buying more bandwidth. Our company though refused to over sell. You could buy a line from our company and one from the company we got our lines from and I promise you. Your line would be down a lot, take forever to get fixed and not get max speed. You would buy the same line from my company and hit everything you paid for and get a tech support that would bend over backwards to help you with any problems you had even if it wasn't "our problem". When our peaks came close to hitting max bandwidth we bought more. Not so with all the major ISPs.. So this article is nothing new.
Of course, if you don't agree you can always go start your ISP.
The 12 year olds approach to arguments.
Exactly.
Those cell towers in BFE all have to have 10x the pipes versus plain voice calling. If you have 7meg to your phone... A hundred other users on the same tower adds up to fat pipes... And lots of digging for new fiber.
In addition you have the politics going on. You'd think AT&T owning air and land could upgrade cheaply... But they made a lot of network decisions 5 years ago "for competition" ie to get more money out of other providers for simple upgrades. All those decisions add up to a bunch of the work that was "subsidized" needing to be dug up and replaced.
I just got a report from Webster, Webster and Cohen that their analysts find that bears are catholic and the pope shits in the woods.
Probably due to that new bear pope, Pope Maulington XXIII
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
> their payment model isn't $0.xx/GB of transfer, it's $xxxx per Gbps of bandwidth. If ISP buys too much bandwidth, it means it will sit there without being used, or it may be used in peak times and be just sitting there the rest ~20 hours of day.
Actually its a combination of link speed and bandwidth used.
The majority of upstream links are billed based on the 95th percentile. This allows for your upstream to have more bandwidth then you require during average usage, but can handle your peak times without affecting your bill too much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burstable_billing
Why dig a trench? They could just use wireless!
(yes, it's meant to be funny, not a flame)
Karnal
The point is that at the ISP level you buy bandwidth in large dollar amounts. If an ISP decided from historical data they needed 2 pipes they can't just get a third without massive outlay of dollars. On the best case they just increased fixed costs 50% (on longvterm contract) for pipe they don't have enough customers to pay for. In the worst case they have to pay for new fiber and digging.. A huge up front capital cost.
You countries pathetic internet link is less than 1/4 of the potential speed of a single optical fiber and probably costs less than $100 - $500k.
In the future UK FTTC will be delivering bandwidth potential of your country to 10's of thousands of cabinets across the country.
If you're in the ISP business, maybe you are doing it wrong.
sources (see vid on youtube page)
http://www.youtube.com/my_speed#
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fiber_to_the_x
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fiber-optic_communication
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
The overage charges aren't supposed to make them lots of money, it's supposed to keep heavy bandwidth users in control so that the rest of the network doesn't suffer. Also, it doesn't matter how much it actually costs to the ISPs at that point. Nowhere they say it costs them $2.50/GB, but that's the price they're billing from you if you use over something like 250GB a month, which most people won't. They're free to do so. You're also free to choose your provider. However, don't bitch if there are no providers that sell you at the price you want.
depends on the ISP... Bell Canada, for example, includes 2GB/month usage with their cheapest plan, and charges $2.50/GB for overage. That is obscene, and considering that they're charging you $30/mo for a 2mbit connection, there's no way you're going to convince me it actually costs them that much when I can get a 5mbit w/ 300GB/mo and $0.25/GB overage charge for $32/mo, and if I were willing to pay $37/mo, I could get 5mbit w/ no bandwidth cap at all, both from a different provider that uses the same network, meaning I'd be connected to the same port, with the same copper.
You obviously don't understand that if they were all just price fixing, then by the laws of capitalism some new ISP could easily come in and undercut them and still make tons of profit.
What seems to be missing from this analysis is the constantly changing infrastructure. While the cost for additional traffic may be low given that infrastructure, in the real world the intrastructure - especially the mobile one - needs regular updates, increasing the costs of the future additional traffic that drives the needs for these infrastructure updates.
In the past decades we've seen regular modems, 56K, ISDN, ADSL in many varieties, Internet over cable TV, fiber, GSM, WAP, GPRS, UMTS, Edge, HDSPA, all requiring massive infrastructure upgrades.
The pace at which customers demand such upgrades seems to be increasing with their data demands. So the ISPs may have a point but this article does not since it does not factor in the cost of the infrastructure.
0x or or snor perron?!
They all do it because it's the only feasible way to do business as an home customer ISP. Just think how many customers someone like Verizon has and think if there is enough bandwidth to provide them all with 100Mbps guaranteed. No, there isn't. Home users for the most part don't need that much bandwidth 24/7, but they have a need to peak at such speeds momentarily. However, they all do it at mostly different times so it works out.
I rather take 100Mbps burstable bandwidth to home than 128kbps guaranteed. But whatever floats your boat.
I run a wireless ISP in Texas. The cost of buying upstream bandwidth doesn't change much, it in fact gets cheaper per Mb/s as the pipes get huge. The real cost change is in delivery. The backbone between towers, and especially in the access points all have to be increased to accommodate the additional load. In some instances, the access points cannot technologically accommodate the load yet. The ISP model was designed on a over-subscription basis. In other words, you could have 10:1 users using a give bandwidth. With the advent of video like Netflix, this model is no longer going to be viable. We are seriously looking at having two different account types. One that will allow short video bursting, and one that will allow continuous video feeds. The latter account will cost much more than the former since it is what is driving the costs.
Water is wet.
This seems to be a general practice of business. Isn't that how the banks have been explaining minimum balance fees? It costs them so much to maintain these particular accounts that they are forced into charging onerous fees.
Roads are a public good. Internet is very similar in many ways. It is clear that physical internet connectivity isn't really a competitive market, because having ten network drops to every house, much like having ten highways between the same two cities, makes little, to no sense. You end up with natural monopolies, or at best duopolies, These monopolies interests are always going to be to raise the tolls as normal private sector motivations apply. They will try to minimize investment (because that just kills profits, and improvements drive down profits) and maximize margin. It's the rational thing for them to do. If a government regulator is put in place, they will just argue with them in that direction. There is no rational free market reason for the rent seekers to do anything else. This is not an argument against private sector involvement. For example: Government often doesn't actually build it's own roads. Rather, it contracts with private sector to build roads. then owns them, and lets contracts for their upkeep. Private sector would still be doing all the heavy lifting, and still be competing on construction and maintenance contracts, they just don't own the infrastructure.
So the real question is: Do you encourage greater overall economic growth by leaving ISP service captured by rent seeking, or does this hurt the rest of the economy that relies on the infrastructure? In the case of roads, there is a lot of public road building, as well as toll roads. Private sector only moves in on profitable highway projects where the tolls are limited by the amount of competition provided by public roads, and the un-profitable feeder roads are typically all public. The goal of citizens, and their commercial activities, is to have a decent road system that enables the economy and other societal activities.
The rational economic goal of encumbent isp's is to maximize the rate they can charge for a minimized level of investment and maintenance.
There is an inherent conflict.
There is a T1 global back-bone that sells dedicated internet bandwidth at a flat rate of $1/mbit/month in 10gbit increments. That's about $1 for 316GB(bytes)/month. I'm sure a T1 ISP gets it cheaper than that.
Outside of of infrastructure costs, bandwidth is nearly free.
So lying to your customers is the only feasible way of doing business? Then the business has no business being in business. And who are you or anyone to dictate what people need at home? If you say you are selling something to someone, you better deliver, because even if you are not breaking the law explicitly, you are breaking a general moral law that most people in the world agree with that I have met. Over selling is straight up lying to your customer. Its not the only feasible way to do business. Our ISP did not do that. And is still in business.
Does the duck weigh the same as witch, and is it therefore made of wood?
you're implying that the costs would have been high up front and not afterwards. ballooning costs implies that the costs would go up with use - high fixed up front infrastructure cost business is the exact opposite of that you dumbbell.
128kbps amounts to about 11 Gbit/day
With 100Mbps you use that up in less than 2 minutes.
With the specification you have given you say you would prefer to have a 100Mbps bandwidth for 2 minutes and than be completely cut off compared to 128kbps guaranteed.
I find that hard to believe, perhaps you meant that you would prefer 100Mbps burstable with 1Mbps guaranteed inbetween. In that case I agree; that would be preferable to 128kbps.
Without a guaranteed minimum bandwith you have pretty much agreed that it is OK for your ISP to not deliver at all.
Of course, if you don't agree you can always go start your ISP.
Sure, just as soon as I get the same billion dollar check from our government they all did to put in their networks back in the Clinton years.
You think they'd even let you do it if you could? Not likely.
"comparing a home pricing to business pricing is deceptive"
Residential Cable Internet: $60 for 18/2 250GB cap
Business Cable Internet: $100 for 18/2 no cap, uses separate fiber routes that have dedicated bandwidth(only shared bandwidth is on the cable infrastructure), ToS claims you get dedicated bandwidth 24/7, personal representative, no wait tech-support queue, 1 business day guaranteed service
That $40 sure gets you A LOT. I'm eventually upgrading, but it is an extra $40/month that I must come up with.
Countries outside of the U.S. have no problem offering high speed unlimited data at affordable prices without any of the problems that the U.S. carriers are claiming. And the best deals are often on mobile! And, yes, there is heavy audio and video traffic in other countries as well.
Do you have any ideas how isps work? What you say is not possible in this technologically backwards ass country.
World doesn't have enough total bandwidth to provide everyone with guaranteed 100Mbps. Overselling and calculating from usage meters is the only way to deliver faster speeds to everyone. Otherwise we would be stuck at 128kbps. Even that is probably too much 24/7 guaranteed to everyone, it would be more like 48kbps if even that.
If they sold at cost, we'd be paying closer to $15/month.
I was reading an interview with one of the top consultants for ISPs. He said the average broadband ISP pays under $1/month/customer in bandwidth costs and about $8/month/customer in infrastructure and support costs. The rest is profit.
ohh, and bandwidth costs drop about 33%-50% each year(for Teir1) because supply keeps increasing.
Plum Consulting claims the cost per additional gigabyte of data for fixed-line ISPs is between €0.01-0.03 per GB
Is that €0.03 or €0.0003 ?
Yeah, they can't possibly survive at all without their over 10,000% profit margin (assuming the .01 - .03 figures are accurate)!
Even if the figures are an order of magnitude off they are still making ((10 - .1) / .1) * 100 = 9900% or ((10 - .3) / .3) * 100 = 3233% If they are extracting such high margins then they should be more than able to pay for new infrastructure to meet demand, and thus lower costs, rather than whining and raising prices even higher.
> that dinosaurs are in fact extinct
According to the current understanding, birds are a subfamily of dinosaurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry
Good-bye
Unless by 'current understanding' you mean you saw it in Jurassic Park.
No, the adult approach is to realize that in countries without a common-carrier law for ISPs, it's prohibitively expensive to start a new ISP, so effort is better spent getting better deals out of existing ISPs.
Oh come on, you think Bell is charging $13/gb overage just to "keep us in line" and not to line their pockets? If they wanted to keep users in line, they'd throttle or contact the account owner and advise them of the issue/threaten fees. Instead they're skipping those steps and laughing all the way to the bank.
and water is not wet. It causes things to be wet, but it by itself is not wet. What else did the institution get wrong?
yes it costs nothing to support more traffic during nonpeak hours
and it'll cost nothing to support more traffic until lines hit capacity
and then when you reach some limit the cost will explode
According to the current understanding, birds are a subfamily of dinosaurs.
According to the definition of the word "dinosaur", birds are not dinosaurs. (Note that, although one definition on that page says "one group of dinosaurs evolved into birds", that doesn't mean that they continued to be dinosaurs after they became birds.)
I agree with you on this. I wonder how long phone and/or telegraph lines were private before they were turned over into a government utility. What about electric?
It'd be nice to be able to change Internet or Cell providers as easily as you can change landline providers.
This can go the wrong way, though, too... look at ESCOs (Energy Service Companies). Google "IDT Energy New York" and see the sort of dirt shenanigans they've been up to. I've yet to meet anyone who actually saved money switching to an ESCO.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
.(US).. law enforcement can easily get subpoena's to track individual users now. Imagine if the government was IN CONTROL of the internet.
Are you saying that although the US government can gain large amounts information it wants quite easily from private enterprises now - if it became a publicly regulated utility they could gain more? That may be true, but I view it more as a question of political power. My rule of is that those without power tend to suffer. Back in the 60's - when the "Russkies" terrorized our corporate state - It seemed to me that privacy laws were much stronger. That would include publicly regulated utilities.
How do Slashdot people feel about the regulation of political parties in the U.S.? People who tend to oppose government regulation never mention this subject. It doesn't seem to interest them.
Great Quote from 1927
Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail."
ref What is a Political Party?
http://i-voter.tripod.com/US_PoliticalParties.html
Yeah, and a dictionary has never been out of date on a scientific topic before...
When you want an answer on current science, look to the journals, not to Funk & Wagnalls.
It's not a question of "current science". No-one's disputing the evolutionary history; the fact is that the word "dinosaur" has a meaning in the English language, and that meaning does not encompass birds.
Learn to read actual research journals from the past five years dimwit.
Linking to some bird dinosaur fanboy's webpage at Berkeley is about as silly as linking to wikipedia.
The meaning of the word 'dinosaur' has nothing to do with the dead Bird Dinosaur Theory.
Finds over the past few years have put a definitive nail in the coffin of the Bird Dinosaur Theory. There are still people who still have a tremendous emotional investment into the now dead theory and of course the dead theory continues to linger in the public minds because so many people latch onto the silly 'your eating a dinosaur with each chicken dinner' meme.
Is power. And power had been fairly stable. Add to that the fact that newer routing gear isn't as power hungry as the old and you can see we are getting raked over the coals.
It's the same thing with telephony. The long distance market fell apart because the cost to carry the calls kept dropping with increased levels of automation. Now long distance is bundled in with the normal monthly cost of most phone plans wired or wireless.
And even wireless services, they're getting increasingly less expensive to provide too. But they'll try to charge all the market will bear.
And need I bring up banks that rely on some of the technologies above? Why do you pay a foreign ATM fee that's a full 30% of the average $20 withdrawal when we KNOW that the cost for the network transports are hundreths of a cent per transaction? The bottom dropped out, but banks being greedy, rapacious bastards, will charge all the market will bear.
This is like saying "'one group of mammals evolved into humans' but that doesn't mean we continued to be mammals after we became humans."
FTFY. We now know better.
(captcha: scorner)
Shockingly enough, replacing words in a sentence and coming up with something false doesn't mean the original sentence was false too. Your variation is false because the definition of "mammal" includes humans, but mine was true because the definition of "dinosaur" doesn't include birds, and any attempt to claim otherwise is just Newspeak.
Yeah, and once upon a time the definition of "animal" didn't include humans. I suppose redefining humans as animals was just false and "Newspeak" too.
There is no such thing as guaranteed bandwidth on a packet switched network. It only costs the infrastructure and it to be bought and installed to increase bandwidth, just put in a bigger pipe and voila. The problem is the complaining ones built the original networks on the cheap or justso many years ago thatit should have been upgraded/replaced years ago, and the price is going up and up of the amount they have to replace by the day cause they haven't been keeping up. Oh, and I would love to have a 100Mbps line even for a minute here, but unless I pay for them to dig up the fucking road I'm stuck with a maximum of 3.5Mbit/s down cause that's the shitty quality of the copper.
Actually, on rereading your post more carefully I take the previous reply back. Your version is correct, in the fact that a group of mammals evolved into humans doesn't mean that humans are mammals. However, it also doesn't mean that humans are not mammals. In the bird/dinosaur case, birds are not dinosaurs because they do not possess the key characteristics implied by the term "dinosaur", but humans are mammals because they do possess the key characteristics implied by the term "mammal".
I wish BT would just replace my crappy last mile already, as it maxes at 3.5Gbps at the moment cause it's crappy 70's copper that should have been replaced a decade ago.
3.5Gbps ... wish I got 3.5Gbps you lucky bastard... ;-)
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
I think everyone with a qualified head knows damn well that "start your own ISP and quit whining about the monopoly" has been stomped into the ground by EVERY OTHER ENTERPRENEUR that ALREADY TRIED IT in a given market.
If capitalism is so great and bad companies also go away, then why are many places still stuck with shitty service from an ISP that's been around forever?
she just doesn't care.
Someone tried that and the ISPs sued them over it.
What does "better" mean? Is there something in the sequence of letters that makes the word inherently more suitable for a meaning that includes birds than the meaning that everyone uses it for?
Call me when this has been subjected to something resembling peer review and still holds up. As it is, the source of this report has suspect motivations given who paid for it. This could be 90% confirmation bias.
Dumbell yourself. If usage is continuously going up, you are going to have to incur those high up front install costs on a regular basis
You really have no idea what you're talking about, so just quit while you're closer to being ahead.
[citation needed]
Kid-proof tablet..
You really are a deluded little shite, so just kill yourself.
Here's a fucking clue: mammals are a class, okay? So any "characteristics implied by the term" mean they are mammal characteristics. The fact that humans evolved from mammals sure as hell means they are mammals, because you can't evolve out of a class.
Same with dinosaurs - for example, they're classified as diapsids which were defined by characteristic holes in the sides of their skulls. Not all diapsids have these - some have lost them, such as snakes, but they are still classified as diapsids and all their descendants forevermore will be diapsids, no matter what other features they evolve, until they go extinct.
If birds are descended from dinosaurs they will always be classified as dinosaurs because evolution is a branching tree.
You get it now? Done talking out of your ass? Kindly shut the fuck up and go read a book.
Almost all of these types of reports citing how cheap *additional* gigabytes cost only reflect the marginal costs. They don't reflect the underlying infrastructure cost, the cost of workers (often union) and their healthcare benefits. This is why when we look at broadband providers financials, the gross profit margin will be in the 60% range but the net profit margin will be in the sub 10% range.
The majority of upstream links are billed based on the 95th percentile.
Correct.
but can handle your peak times without affecting your bill too much.
Incorrect, as least as concerns the quotes I've received from 3 different fibre providers in the past year. My 95th percentile usage is around 13 mbps, which would cost me approximately the same as a 40 mbps dedicated connection from the same providers. 95th percentile billing sounds smart, but in actuality is a rip-off, at least in the Alberta market.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
World doesn't have enough total bandwidth to provide everyone with guaranteed 100Mbps. Overselling and calculating from usage meters is the only way to deliver faster speeds to everyone. Otherwise we would be stuck at 128kbps. Even that is probably too much 24/7 guaranteed to everyone, it would be more like 48kbps if even that.
If it's true, then you shouldn't need to lie about it. If you're full of shit, then yeah, you probably need to lie.
Actually... Bandwith used for netflix in USA has been reported to take up more than the torrenting...... And those only use the network like 1-2 hours per day..
If the ISP dont want heavy users on their network then do one of the following..
1. Limit the bandwith of the user... Why sell 100Mbit of you only can deliver 10Mbit.
2. Limit the mount of traffic the user is allowed to transfer per hour..
OR... get some shaping sollution that gives all active users the same % of the available bandwith... This does not interfere with the quality for others except that the ISP cannot overbook their uplink as much if they have too many heavy users...and for those see point 1&2....
If they still have problems and are loosing customers maybe they should think about that they are overcharging their customers and need to adjust their pricing..
Four-conductor (and in some places two-conductor) 128Kbps symmetric with 4-hour SLA is available pretty much everywhere in the US. It's called ISDN. Call your phone company and get a price quote, then compare it to your 100 Mbps, 50 Mbps, or 25 Mbps bursting service with crappy SLA.
64 Kbps is a DS-0 equivalent, which is a digital voice line. For ISDN you use what's called a B channel. ISDN is available as one B Channel, two, or 23 (ISDN Prime Rate Interface, or PRI). You'll get guaranteed speeds and a great SLA, but you'll pay for it.
A PRI is about $200 to $500 depending on where you get it, and you're still at the lowest aDSL speeds.
I'm not aware of anyone advertising ISDN BRI, but since it was about $125 to $180 per month in the late 1990s I'm sure your telco's CO would love to sell that to you over aDSL if you insist.
So something can't evolve out of a class even if its characteristics are different? So all life on Earth is bacteria?
No, and no. Read a fucking book.
^this
who has the money to bribe the local officials to ignore the bigger bribes from the evil crops; and THEN start building ur isp
warning pointless sig
The colo biz has used data transfer as a b/w measure forever, and very few complaints result. Tenants pay for what they use, and everyone enjoys the same speed - fast. Not saying you could just flip a switch and make this work for consumers, but the sooner we can establish two things, the better it will be for everyone (including the ISPs): a clear correlation between what I use and what I pay, and a network that gives me performance and speed I don't feel stoopid about paying for.
Of course not. They're still around, running the ISPs.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Yeah, well if you go by the dictionary, "wet" can mean "consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (as water)" and "in a liquid form or state." Sounds like water qualifies!
Check the difference in FiOS prices.
Service Res Bus
15/5 49.99 64.99
25/25 69.99 84.99
it goes on and on, the highest tier is 199.99 vs 199.99 for 150/35 so at the highest rate, business pays the same, that $20 or less really buys some service.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Move to a FiOS service area, you can get 150/35 for $200. It isn't symetric, but I don't think any US carrier is really setup for symetric unless you want to pay the DS and OC rates for your connection (DS3 45/45 for $3000).
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
10 gbit over t1? do you mean maybe OC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_carrier
Also, when talking about internet connections, it is DS, not T, T is just telephone service.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?